by Mary W Maxwell, PhD (Politics), LLB
The continuing presence of the monarch in the Australian government is ridiculous and should come to an end right now. It’s not just ridiculous, it is harmful.
That harm has nothing to do with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It has to do with our grey matter. The human brain is barely able to cope with the concept of “a nation” in the contemporary setting (that is, where we are confronting globalism), and we desperately need to be a nation.
I am disgusted with the corruption of government today. Ask: is there a way to fix this? If yes, it will have to be at a plain, human level. To judge our government personnel we need to know what our relationship is to one another and to them. An abstraction such as “the Crown” can only confuse such a vital endeavor.
Five centuries ago, the Brits, and Dutch, and Spanish were sea-going to the point of being able to subjugate far-away nations. Britain became an empire. (This wasn’t considered embarrassing – Queen Victoria signed her name ”Empress of India.”) Empires are probably inevitable — consider the Persian, the Roman, the Soviet empires. Anyway, it was thus that a well-hidden continent, Australia, got invaded and settled by Brits.
But why would we say, today, that someone from the Mother Country should have power over us? Granted, it’s good that we inherited much from our Anglo ancestors, such as the English language and dignity-enhancing ideas of the Magna carta. But we don’t have to cling to a “Crown” as the symbol of government. Our symbol should be ourselves. We need to be a community.
Section 58
Here is Section 58 of the Australian Constitution Act:
“When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen’s pleasure….
“The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.”
I mean who needs it? Oops, that could be a subversive question. Whoever needs us to have an extra layer on top is probably the folk that need us to have an extra layer on top! They don’t want us to have power ourselves. Or more to the crux of my argument, they don’t want us to recognize our power. They’d rather we stay confused.
We have two legislative chambers – the Senate (with 12 senators from each state) and a House of Reps, with 150 MP’s. Each of the two chambers can act as a check on each other. And the two major parties often performing a checking role on each other. Why need a third check?
Personally I am in favor of third-checking. I do not even rule out that the checker could be entitled “Governor-General.” He or she could be an Aboriginal elder, or a sort of DAR (daughters of the American revolution – women who think they are God’s gift because their forebears came over on the Mayflower — in Oz’s case, that would be sons of convicts). Or a fresh graduate majoring in music.
Who Will Be the GG-Type Person?
Wouldn’t it be great if a G-G had the kind of brain that would think about the long term effect of a particular proposed law? And whose office could connect with anyone in the population claiming to have a nifty idea for Australia?
Hell, wouldn’t it be great if that G-G were deeply moral? He would be able to take note of a situation occurring in Oz today and say “Excuse me, Folks, we can’t have this, this is an outrage.” Dear Reader, do you suspect me of wanting to be appointed to the position? No way! I want that person to be someone I can turn to.
Absolutely I cannot turn to the actual G-G today, Sir Peter Cosgrove. Sorry, Pete, ol buddy, but you have never evinced the slightest sense of things being morally outrageous or as being “unwise for the long term.”
Nor did Dame Quentin Bryce. And by the way, Quentie ol’ gal, you should not have accepted a damehood. It puts you squarely in the suspicious box. Yes, you wore gorgeous clothes (thanks for that, it was inspiring) but where were you when we needed you?
First, Leave the Position Empty
We don’t have to pick the winner today. We should just change the Constitution, by a mail-in referendum or maybe even by physical gatherings, to omit the monarchy stuff. WE DON’T NEED IT.
Let me now state my case “for” Australia. I arrived here in 1980 from the US and thought it was a “together” country (as opposed to an unravelling one, or one with no soul). Where did I get my sense of the Oz nation? Knowing me, I probably got it from the poems of Banjo Paterson (1854-1941). Seriously. A nation or tribe often gets launched by a simple legend or even a mere symbol.
How could we become a nation again today? It would take a willingness for people to stop thinking only of themselves. Right now we think we must focus on ourselves, as there are frightening stories of how we may soon lose everything (by a bushfire, a dollar-collapse, police brutality “Hi have you taken your microchip injection yet?”, or a nuke). We’re also told that our so-called rulers in Parliament only ever think of THEIR personal gain.
This won’t do, won’t do at all. We have to revive a sense of community and yes that does mean a willingness to sacrifice some of our selfish interests. And for this there has to be leadership in Australia. We need to respect and support people who come forward to help – instead of doing that very Aussie thing: cut down tall poppies. (We still do that; it’s infuriating.)
Well, that’s my rant. I will now add a bit of Constitution review, in case anyone thinks we are cemented to that document.
A Potted (Very Potted) Legal History
In 1642, the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman sailed out of one of his empire’s holdings, Batavia (part of Indonesia), at the behest of the ruler, Van Dieman. He went too far south to sight the Australian mainland but found Tasmania and called it Van Dieman’s land – natch. (I’ll bet it did not even occur to him to call it Tasmania!)
In 1788 the English sent their sailor Captain Cook to claim Australia for the UK. Paying no attention to the rights of this continent’s indigenous population, the Brits founded the colony of New South Wales. This included what is now all the Eastern states and Tasmania.
In 1900 various men, including graziers who had originally got generous “land grants” – ahem – from Britain, met and arranged for Oz to become a nation. This was accomplished by writing a Constitution. I suppose they could have imitated the American action of 1775 and said “One if by land and two if by sea,” or whatever, and declared war on the Redcoats. But they didn’t.
The Australia Constitution Act was passed in July 1900 as an act of Parliament in London. It federated the six states. In 1898 and 1900 those states – or, technically, colonies — had held referenda to decide to opt in to the federation. They all said Yes (with WA being a bit of a foot dragger).
Gradual Breakaway from the Mother Country
Three pieces of legislation after the 1901 Constitution gave Australia a bit more independence—the 1926 Balfour Declaration, the 1932 Statute of Westminster, and the Australia Act of 1986.
The Balfour Declaration of 1926 (not to be confused with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which was only a letter from Balfour to Rothschild concerning Palestine) was the product of a conference of all the king’s realms, such as Canada and South Africa. It declared them all autonomous.
By the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act of 1932, Australia’s Parliament agreed that it was good to put an end to UK Parliament’s right to override any domestic law of Australia. (Well you would, wouldn’t you.)
As for the 1986 Australia Act, it is referred to as a “repatriation” of the Constitution. Its opening words are:
“An Act to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation.”
Guess what. It came into effect in 1986 after getting the royal assent in December 1985. Ha ha.
The Punishment Parade
Gumshoe readers know me. They know I am always saying “Get’ em.”. I think the current belief that punishment is outdated or silly is really daft. Here are just five of the things Gumshoe editor Dee McLachlan typically moans about:
- Ex-Minister of Trade, Andrew Robb, sold the port of Darwin to China and then accepted a lucrative job from the relevant broker.
- Julia Gillard, after leaving the Lodge, went to work for the Brookings Institution.
- Parliament ruled that mothers who don’t vaccinate their children won’t get certain allowances.
- The ABC is NOT “our” ABC — but “THEIRS.”
- Foreign Minister Julie Bishop agreed with the Dutch that we would hide whatever we found from an investigation of the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight 17 in which 27 Aussies died. (HELLO?)
Only by chatting about severe punishment for people who do those things can the citizenry absorb the (age-old) notion that such stuff is not allowable. It has to be cracked down on. To let it go is pure masochism.
We could easily hold Truth Commissions. State police commissioners probably think they have the public under control, such as by staging dawn raids in homes of dissidents. Oh yeah? Watch out, coppers. We be having mini-truth commissions all over the place, even in MacDonald’s. You will have to start working for us if you want your pay instead of working for whomever you are at the moment working for – and I’ll bet you don’t even know who that is!
In sum, no man can serve two masters, no nation can have two sets of rulers. Out goes Her Maj. In comes …. you.
P.S. I refrained from handling states in this article, as the whole issue of our nation’s Queen being also a monarch, separately, of each of the states is way too much for my grey natter.
— Mary Maxwell has changed stripes. In 1998 she gave a speech “Why I Am a Monarchist” to a meeting of the Australian Institute for International Affairs. But then, of course, that was “before 9/11 changed everything.”
Mary, you could’ve added Canberra “must go” too.
Ok, lets correct something right off the bat. The Australia Act never had Royal Assent and still doesn’t to this day. Section 17 of said Act. ” This Act shall come into operation on a day and at a time to be fixed by Proclamation.” Now, does that sound like it has been given Royal Assent? No, it doesn’t and it applies to every single Act in Australia after 1973. Why, because that treacherous Fabian, Gough Whitlam allowed us to be signed up with the UNIDROIT treaty, effectively handing us over to the Vatican and the City of London via the US. It explains how our courts have changed, insurance, “human resources”, the privatising of public assets and the obscene privileges of politicians and the unchecked corruption of public servants. There is another major player in all of this, but it seems they can bomb Syria without getting a mention in the newspapers, destroy a US warship without desert storm raining down on them and accuse others of breaking nuclear treaties while holding an impressive arsenal of their own in secret.
I would prefer the protection of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1688 and common law over the faux laws we have today in the form of maritime law/private law/canon law. We have lost our identity, our wealth, our freedom and our country to these foreign invaders. All aided and abetted by the catholic lawyers in Canberra.. (both of which weren’t welcome in the Constitution)
The Constitution (common law) has its faults, but the commonwealth of Australia under the constitution is we the people, we have the power. Under what we have now (roman law) we are just the cash cows for a foreign banking entity listed out of Washington.
Yeah, i would be in favour of Australia becoming truly independent, BUT certainly not run or engineered by politicians or public servants, who i see as traitors to this country.
Spot on Glen. As an example of Traitors in Australia, we need look no further that W.A.’ latest G.G.
Excellent article today in the Sunday Times on page 42, under the heading “Opinion”. It talks about the hypocrisy of none other than Kim Beazley, who has landed a cushy job as W.A. G.G. at the rate pf $400,000 per year on top of his Federal Government pension.
This man has claimed all his political life, as a staunch Republican movement, yet is quiet willing to throw away all such beliefs for a hundred grand in his pocket, and become the Queen’s representative in W.A.
Ideal example of the greed and hypocrisy self serving of our politicians.
….that treacherous Fabian, Gough Whitlam allowed us to be signed up with the UNIDROIT treaty.
Thank christ someone is aware of this very anti democratic and anti rule-of-law treaty.
This treaty requires all signatory countries to move all their people into agreements of some kind with the federal govt of their respective country.
By signing such agreements, the person then steps outside of some of their constitutional rights. By signing such agreements people are moved into private law between the govt and the individual which in turn means they have no recourse to the courts, because they have now entered into a private agreement with the govt or the state.
Any disagreements are simply ‘administratively reviewed.’ The rulings themselves made by the govt are never up for review. Only the process for reaching that decision is reviewed.
One might care to notice that every pensioner and all Center link claimants sign an “Agreement” not a Contract.
Despite the vilification of people on the dole, the facts of life are that the commonwealth government WANTS as many people as possible to lodge a claim for some kind of payment, any payment will do.
By claiming a payment, they are then required to sign a agreement (private) moving them away from their protections in the Constitution and into private law with the Commonwealth from which their is no right appeal only procedural review.
I find it staggering that an organisation like a well known so-called church that is supposed to care for and love people, behind our backs, are working to enslave us and take away our HUMAN rights.
Thank you Glenn. Couldn’t agree more!
Especially the bit about “traitors to this country”.
Their time’s a-comin”.
Probably sooner than one might think.
Thanks Phil. Hopefully the team with Rod Culleton have them squirming. Reading between the lines, i think that’s why Brandis fled Canberra in a hurry. Fingers crossed.
The court scene:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AlJFGyNDrHY
LOL!! hadn’t seen that, funny!! I can assure you, he is still hanging on to that tail
We can get rid of the Queen from Australia but you cannot get rid of Australia from the queen; we need to be subservient to something, being a subservient culture to overseas interests, as we are not to have a Australian who is a moral exceptional individual,we need ouf decadence and frivolity, I suggest Trump for the interim could take Her Majesties place, that is someone who is materialistic,, depraved, sexist and corrupt, would be suitable for the reflection of what we are.
With all due respect, the Queen of England has already gone. The Monarchy is only a privileged and prestigious figurehead for “The Crown” that is the City of London. The Monarchy has been the servant of “The City” for several hundred years.
Now then, Mistress Mary, the whole point of the “Civil Authority” document I sent you and you apparently didn’t read, is that there is practical, legal, morally and philosophically justifiable means to wrest the government and judiciary from the presently incumbent traitors.
Yes, it is true the queen is subservient to the city of London of London. We need to start somewhere though. These criminals calling themselves our government are hiding our rights from us. Just in this last week I have found out that a JP is a court of summary justice. They don’t even know that themselves. Its in the Acts Administration Act 1901Section 28…. oh wait, what’s this .. no section 28, only section 28A.. something unrelated.. Who gave the the power to do that. Or the High Court case Moeliker V Chapman, where the ATO admits they are not a legal entity.. Oh, it was there in Austlii.. where is it now? Covering their tracks perhaps? We all voted in 1988 to deny a third level of government, what do they do? They create the Local Government Act.. . a bit of a pattern here?
Perhaps so, Glenn. But most of what you’re worried about is deception and hype. The only thing that perpetuates it is the traitorous secretocracy.
As I understand it, “The Crown” is “The City of London” and the reigning monarch is but the very prestigious and privileged figurehead of The City.
Ole Shakespeare had Richard III cry out “A horse! My Kingdom for a horse!” but in fact it was Henry VIII who traded the Kingdom for the Throne.
As such, everyone and everything is the “owned” by the Crown and all ” statutory rights” are “granted” by the Crown according to its political convenience. All property apparently “owned” by the Crown’s vassals is only a “custody” also “granted” by the Crown according to its discretion and convenience.
There are those who get all excited about the proposed “New World Order” as being a Satanic plot to usurp God but it has been galloping toward that goal for at least 500 years and it will continue for as long as peopledom value status, money and pleasure above truth and virtue.
For those of us with a pretty useless legalistic bent I recommend:
http://www.cirnow.com.au/commonwealth-of-australia-true/
Now I’m almost compelled to to take another swipe at the intellectual and moral ineptitude that is characteristic of “modernity”.
I’ll put up a couple of home-made definitions:
Lawyer: Someone who has a certificate that says that they can tie anything up in spurious legalese and red tape but they cannot see what is plainly obvious to an honest man.
Politics: The art of deception by “diplomacy”. Such adepts might claim a Bachelor of Arts but there is no way that such a thing could be called “science” and adepts be awarded a PhD which means “Doctor of Philosophy”. All branches of scientific disciplines come under the umbrella of philosophy which means the “love of wisdom”, or the search for knowledge and understanding of reality.
Looks like a lot of ink has been spent trying to drown out my rather simple message:
Remove the archaic vestiges of monarchy from the Oz constitution and then we”ll be able to look one another in the eye and decide what to do.
He followed like a bloodhound on their track
Till they halted, cowed and beaten, then he turned their heads for home
And alone and unassisted brought them back.
— BP, 1886
Well put.
It would be wonderful to remove the monarchy from Australia, but what would we be left with? Although it is not ideal, the constitution is a handy tool to try and keep the Canberran wolves from the door. You are absolutely correct that we need to start fresh, but in this environment that would leave us near naked with not a great deal to protect us. Not sure all is lost just yet though. This man just might be on to something. He has paid quite a price for his efforts, but I think he is on to something.
https://justiniandeception.wordpress.com
I am serially astonished by how well the Deceiver and his lackeys can ignore the real facts and actions to deride Christianity.
Better the Devil you know
Which goes to the fact that all man-made systems are flawed
Do you feel that you know them, Berry? Do you feel you understand your new GG, Kim Beazley, Jr?
Berry, “all man made systems are flawed”
Does this mean we should countenance bad ones, which, as you know, are leading to worse ones?
I just don’t see how a dynasty could possibly be voted out. It’s like believing that the Rothschild & Rockefeller empires are subject to some sort of popularity poll
Berry, I think they are. (And I think they think they are — they go to so much trouble to keep media from telling it like it is,)
Actually I’m not living within Big Kim’s domain, as affirmed by the following abridged exchange:
LETTER TO THE HON KERRY SANDERSON 10/6/15: “ due to the fact that I’ve not been afforded the protection of binding rules, my obligations toward the Crown have been annulled .”
RESPONSE 22/6/15: “I can’t do anything I have no power”
The situation could get much worse, you know.
When Malcolm Fraser warned about “Dangerous Allies”, he wasn’t joking!!!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49360.htm
Check out how deep the rabbit hole runs:
http://thesaker.is/military-and-non-military-escalation-into-nuclear-war/
And that’s without/before looking into the moneylenders/tribe!!!
Have a nice day.
Some Justice is served-
https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2018/05/01/justice-served-palm-island-receive-30-million-and-formal-apology-response-2004
from the Age:
Mulrunji Doomadgee’s death in a Palm Island cell in November, 2004 sparked riots that culminated in the razing of the island’s police station.
In her report, acting state coroner Christine Clements said that Mr Doomadgee, 36, arrested for public drunkenness, had hit Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley first.
“Senior Sergeant Hurley lost his temper … (and) hit Mulrunji whilst he was on the floor a number of times,” Ms Clements said.
“After this occurred, I find there was no further resistance or indeed any speech or response from Mulrunji. I conclude that these actions of Senior Sergeant Hurley caused the fatal injuries.”
The Crown is a corporation sole.
Michael, please provide more than an assertion.
Wiki: The Roman Catholic Church continues to use corporations sole in holding titles of property: as recently as 2002, it split a diocese in the US state of California into many smaller corporations sole and with each parish priest becoming his own corporation sole, thus limiting the diocese’s liability for any sexual abuse or other wrongful activity in which the priest might engage.
WWJS?
The crown referred to in the consitution is the body of law.
That is the meaning of the symbolic action of placing the crown on hte queen (or king) head It demonstrates that the queen or king submits to the rule of law and discharges their legal obligations.
That other crown, the corporate crown, well, as claimed thats different.
[quote MM] Remove the archaic vestiges of monarchy from the Oz constitution and then we”ll be able to look one another in the eye and decide what to do. [/quote]
Ah ha! another lawyer’s trick to confuse poor donkey… put horse backwards in the traces with cart full of carrots ahead of him. Donkey is not well adapted to chasing unreachable goals with an unnatural rear steering. Sounds like an MKUltra trick to drive poor donkey out of his mind with frustration and despair.
Any action to be taken must start from where we are with the tools we have at our disposal and proceed in orderly fashion to a well defined goal.
Chuck away your lawyer’s specs and brush up on reading and comprehension. I do not think it a mere coincidence that our most illustrious and crooked “public servants” are f’n lawyers.
Have to agree with Oldavid. Lawyers and Catholics whatsmore. Any change in this country has to start with the people. An interesting start would be to donkey vote at any and every election. Second would be learning that which is hidden in plain sight. That’s the deception in everyday language that is used against the english illiterate in court. Once the masses learn the game we have a fighting chance monarchy or not.
https://justiniandeception.wordpress.com
A “donkey vote” is not the option recommended. A resounding “no” vote to all Party hacks is what is required.
Here’s a few thoughts that might put the Constitution into real world perspective.
Arthur Chresby, MHR and constitutional expert, pointed out that the only right Australians have under the Constitution is to whinge to the Queen. She is not obliged to respond.
Because Bob Tavistock Fabian Hawke removed the Queens position, we now have no right whatsoever; even to whinge.
But then, do we need a constitution?
Not one constitution mentions the word DEMOCRACY. Yet every first draft repeated the word several times. Why is this? Because final draft constitutions are prepared by law societies and other vassals of the investment banker/aristocrat alliance elite. James Madison deleted all of Thomas Paine’s contributions to the American Constitution and when this was finally discovered, the insertions were what is now known as the first ten amendments. And even these were hacked to pieces.
And no nation has ever been saved by a constitution. Every nation the US has invaded and stolen since WWII, all 56 of them, had a constitution.
Australia has been stolen from us since 1973 and our Constitution most certainly did not protect us. The truth is, constitutions are a spiked gun. The hierarchy gives us this gun knowing it will let us down when we try to use it.
All we need is one Law. And that is, “All government policy must be formulated by a fully-informed electorate”.
By definition, the only entity that cannot be corrupted is The People.
Imagine if only The People, fully informed, could declare war. And, remember, to be fully informed, that means Murdoch and the ABC Board must cease to exist.
Kevin said, above: The crown referred to in the consitution is the body of law. That is the meaning of the symbolic action of placing the crown on the queen (or king) head It demonstrates that the queen or king submits to the rule of law and discharges their legal obligations.
Coronation ceremony aside, Kevin, what is your source for saying the crown in the Constitution refers to the body of law? And why did we need a new word when “the body of law” says it all?
[…] In a Gumshoe article in 2018, I recommended that the queen quit – no hard feelings. Her presence in the Constitution is simply confusing. I quote my —–article: […]